What are some of the common sources of conflict in strategic leadership contexts?

Facilitating an open conversation about working styles and strengths can prevent resentment from building. Senior leadership helps reframe goals, emphasising areas where collaboration benefits both teams.

In strategic leadership contexts, personality differences often spark conflict. Leaders with divergent approaches, such as risk-takers versus risk-averse individuals, or those with differing communication styles, can clash over decision-making and problem-solving methods. Moreover, variations in work ethics, priorities, and values can lead to misunderstandings and friction. Such differences, if not managed constructively, may hinder collaboration, impede strategic objectives, and impact team morale. Recognizing and respecting these personality differences, while seeking common ground and fostering a culture of open communication, is critical for navigating and mitigating potential conflicts effectively.

I've seen firsthand how personality differences can create challenges within teams. I've witnessed clashes between those who prefer direct communication and those who value subtlety, and I've observed disagreements between detail-oriented individuals and those with a more creative bent. Competing values can also be a source of friction. For example, I've encountered situations where some team members prioritize efficiency and productivity, while others are more focused on innovation and experimentation. And let's not forget the occasional personality clash that seems to defy explanation. As a leader, I believe it's essential to be aware of these potential sources of tension and to have strategies in place to address them effectively.

As strategic leaders, the role holders will obviously come with long experience and strong expertise, and it is understandable from a human perspective that they have strong opinions, belief and habit patterns that influence vision, analysis, execution and decision making. Add to this the complexity of a spectrum of personality types and the pressure of responsibility/accountability, and it is a recipe for conflicts to erupt every once in a while. All conflict is not necessarily bad if used and channeled appropriately towards transparency, convergence and organisational benefit. Conflicts may even unearth genuine issues and great solutions, bringing departments and groups closer.

Place any two people in a room and they will disagree. People are different. Their ideas of success are different. But some are more adaptable. The key to strategic leadership is establishing a culture of quick wins. What does this mean? Find small areas where people agree. Accomplish something in those domains so that the team feels more united on larger issues as well.

Role ambiguity is often a real challenge. Even though there are good ways of driving clarity such as MBO, OKRs, KRAs and KPIs, the implementation is not as effective as possible. Setting clear responsibilities and accountability with measures (both quantitative and qualitative), enabled by governance (track, review, measure) and support mechanisms (mentor, coach, guide) will set the foundation for role clarity. The roles of the leaders themselves should be clear across the organization, especially in large, complex initiatives that will require multiple departments/divisions/groups/units/teams of the organization to work together.

Rigid roles can become a source of conflict as they may not adapt well to new challenges or opportunities. Encourage a mindset where roles are seen as evolving responsibilities that can shift based on the team's needs or strategic priorities. Additionally, create systems for regular role reassessment and realignment, where team members and stakeholders can openly discuss and adjust their roles as projects or goals evolve. It can enhances agility and innovation, as individuals are empowered to step beyond their formal roles to contribute where they can add the most value. By embedding a dynamic understanding of roles, we turn potential conflicts into opportunities, ensuring that the organization remains responsive and cohesive.

Encourage role mapping sessions where each team member actively participates in outlining their responsibilities and how they intersect with others. This collaborative process reduces misunderstandings and fosters shared accountability. Implement regular role reviews, particularly during times of organizational change or growth. By revisiting and refining roles as new projects and priorities arise, leaders can ensure ongoing alignment and minimize conflict, helping team members adapt their responsibilities to the evolving needs of the organization.

To resolve the issue of role ambiguity, leaders should be equipped with conflict resolution skills to address issues that arise from role ambiguity. This involves being able to identify conflicts early and mediate effectively to find mutually acceptable solutions. Regular communication and feedback mechanisms should be installed as part of the cultural alignment of the organisation. Besides, roles and responsibilities should be reviewed regularly and adapted as necessary to meet changing business needs and to ensure they continue to align with strategic objectives.

- Lack of clarity in the roles can create conflicts - Role ambiguity can create duplication and lead to power struggles - It can also lead to clash of vision and confused direction to run the company

Connecting the dots consistently across vision, strategy, goals, plans, execution and business value realization, and then aligning leadership commitment across the board, will create an environment where everyone in the organization can read from the same page, so to speak. It will also ensure that all portfolio programmes and initiatives and the projects they spawn can have the same consistent line of sight to the overarching strategic business priorities. This in turn enables good governance and due diligence throughout execution. Lack of alignment can cause all kinds of friction, discord, political issues, personality clashes and significant lowering of morale.

Goal misalignment occurs when individual or team objectives diverge from the organization's overall strategy, leading to conflicting priorities and efforts. This misalignment can stem from unclear communication, lack of understanding, or competing interests. As a result, resources are wasted, and progress is hindered. In strategic leadership contexts, goal misalignment can lead to power struggles, role confusion,and decreased morale. Effective leaders must identify and address goal misalignment by clarifying expectations,establishing clear objectives, and ensuring everyone is working towards the same outcomes.By realigning goals, leaders can foster collaboration, focus efforts, and drive progress towards achieving the organization's vision.

? Shared understanding is "the degree of cognitive overlap and commonality in beliefs, expectations, and perceptions about a given target." (Cohen & Gibson, Virtual Teams That ?) ? Teams, especially virtual teams, need to develop this shared understanding about o what they are trying to achieve (their goals), o how they will achieve them (work and group processes), o what they need to do (their tasks), and o what each team member brings to the team task (member knowledge, skills, and abilities)

Goal misalignment arises when the vision, goals, or values of leaders and their teams or stakeholders don't align. This misalignment can lead to competing interests, disengagement, or even resistance within the organization. To address this, I focus on clearly communicating my vision and objectives, ensuring everyone understands the bigger picture and how their work contributes to it. Involving others in the co-creation of the strategy helps build buy-in and ensures alignment across the board. By fostering a shared sense of purpose, I can reduce conflicts and drive more cohesive, strategic progress.

If team members or stakeholders have different goals, it can be difficult to get everyone on the same page and moving in the same direction. Even with a shared vision, disagreements can arise about the best way to get there. Different departments or stakeholders may have their own priorities and agendas, leading to conflicting strategies and a lack of direction.

you have to be more creative. ask questions like Can tasks be streamlined? Can under-utilised resources be found? Explain the limitations to stakeholders, inviting their input on finding solutions.

It is surprising how often resource scarcity comes up as a conflict situation, even among otherwise collaborative strategic leaders. In a recent, high stress change management assignment, this was a major issue. Both people and budget. It's no surprise however, that the root cause is lack of "strategic leadership" and "operational excellence". The clean approach would be to resolve these potential issues (or at least have prioritisation and decision criteria to break future deadlocks in such projects) at the: 1) Business strategy definition and 2) Portfolio review and planning .. stages itself. This is right at the start and sets up a continuous chain of consistent decision making that is fully connected to business justification.

Promote resource pooling by encouraging collaboration across departments or teams to share skills, tools, or personnel. This approach maximizes efficiency and ensures that limited resources are used effectively, while fostering a sense of collective ownership over available assets. Utilize scenario planning to anticipate potential resource constraints and proactively develop contingency plans. By preparing for various outcomes, leaders can better manage expectations and allocate resources strategically, reducing the likelihood of conflict when scarcity arises.

Resource scarcity is a frequent source of conflict in strategic leadership when there’s limited access to crucial resources like time, budget, personnel, or information. This often leads to competition and stress within teams as they struggle to meet objectives. To address this, I focus on prioritizing resource allocation based on strategic goals, ensuring that the most critical projects are properly supported. Additionally, collaborating with others to find innovative ways to optimize or stretch resources is key. By transparently managing resource constraints, I can reduce tension and ensure teams remain focused on delivering high-quality results despite the challenges.

Resistance to change is in some ways built into the personality. Inertia and status quo are defining parameters of the "comfort zone", where people are confident of working simply off of muscle memory and deeply ingrained patterns. When that comes under threat, it is essentially uncertainty and the risk to established routines and structures that breeds resistance. It can be overcome if not entirely, at least significantly by: 1) Creating that compelling value proposition, in an inclusive manner 2) Using the value proposition to drive shared vision and commitment 3) Setting up support mechanisms for all aspects of the change including the domain sources as well as psychological factors Essentially, the "What's in it for me?".

Change resistance often arises when individuals or teams are hesitant to adapt to new environments or opportunities. This resistance can stem from fear, uncertainty, or attachment to familiar routines. To manage this, I focus on understanding the root causes of the resistance, whether it’s fear of loss or discomfort with uncertainty. By clearly communicating the benefits and reasons for the change, and involving the team in the transition process, I can build trust and reduce anxiety. Facilitating the change with empathy and support ensures greater buy-in, helping teams feel more confident and committed to the new direction.

Change resistance in strategic leadership is like trying to upgrade an old computer system - some components are eager for the new software, while others stubbornly cling to outdated protocols. The enterprise architect's job is to be the savvy IT specialist, carefully managing the upgrade process, providing support for legacy systems, and demonstrating the benefits of the new "operating system" to win over even the most resistant parts of the organization.

Comfort in the familiar: Embracing change is essential for strategic agility, but new initiatives can often meet resistance from those comfortable with the status quo. This can lead to inertia, missed opportunities, and even sabotage of new strategies.

Conflicts are of course, an expected reality, especially in senior strategic levels where everyone has a lot of success and credibility at stake. Therefore, due diligence at the: 1) Business strategy definition 2) Strategic planning 3) Portfolio management and the 4) Operating model (people, process, technology) .. levels is crucial. Unfortunately, except in a few organizations that have very strong PMO and execution focus, the discipline and rigor gets defeated by the noise of: 1) BAU priorities 2) Customer escalations 3) Project emergencies 4) Priority conflicts ... and other sources of stress and chaos. PMO, governance and process due diligence are key to mitigate conflict.

Disagreements, when handled well, can lead to better solutions than if everyone simply agrees. Encourage respectful debate focused on the ideas, not the individuals. One of my most challenging moments came when an unexpected budget freeze hit mid-project. It took transparency with my team, and some creative rethinking of our deliverables, to get us back on track.

Stakeholder engagement Clear vision and then alignment of objectives to the vision Service planning and prioritisation Strategy delivery Innovation

Lack of setting a clear vision, plain and simple, will cause conflict between teams and individuals. When there's no shared direction, misunderstandings and misalignments become common, leading to inefficiencies and frustration. By establishing and communicating a cohesive vision, leaders can foster unity and ensure everyone is working towards the same goals. This clarity not only enhances collaboration but also drives better outcomes and job satisfaction.